WI-Marquette: Biden +3%

[GeorgiaModerate]

I'm skeptical. I want to believe it. I want Trump to lose but if you look at the polls from 2016, this company had Hillary Clinton up by 6 with 1 week to go before the election.

I don't think Biden is going to take this state for granted as Hillary did.  He knows this state will be tough and looks to be Ground Zero to win the election.

Just cause he doesn't take the state for granted means nothing. Biden like Hillary is a ridiculously flawed candidate who will be toxic among WWC voters based on his positions on TPP, NAFTA, globalization and his Iraq war vote. Biden literally is the swamp. Indisputable.

Your arrogance is astounding.  

"Indisputable"?  This simply isn't true; Biden stirs up nowhere near the visceral dislike that Hillary did among some voters.  If you don't see this, you're being willfully blind.  (And yes, I personally know some union WWC voters in Wisconsin who are examples of this; they voted for Johnson in 2016 because they couldn't stomach Hillary, but will happily vote for Biden).

You claim that every poll that goes against your intuition is wrong.  You pronounce with certainty that Trump will definitely win the election overall,  Michigan (despite consistently strong polling for Biden), Wisconsin, and who knows what else.  Why should we trust your clearly biased "inutition" over gold-standard pollsters like Marquette?

You should try a little humility instead of certainty, and maybe people would take you more seriously and pleasantly instead of dismissing you as an obnoxious jerk.  

[GeorgiaModerate]

The only correct way to look at these polls, same as 2016, is if the Dems are under 50% then Trump is actually ahead. 2016 showed us this that yes, shy Trump supporters are a thing (usually the 'standard R' voters that don't like his style but love his policies) and that Trump should never be underestimated.

So Trump is leading even when he's behind in polls? That is some weird logic. Why people are even still using the 50% rule is beyond comprehension considering that plenty of elections are won by candidates who never reach 50% in polling and some races have been lost by candidates who have reached 50%.

If the number of undecideds is greater than the Dem margin then I don't see how that's very weird logic. We saw this all throughout 2016 (and several in 2018) where Dems were sure they would win because they led, and then we saw how undecideds broke in the end.

You're making an assumption that because undecideds broke for Trump last time, they will do so again.  This may or may not happen, but it certainly can't be automatically assumed.  As others have said, undecideds have historically broken for the out party, especially when things aren't going well in the country (and it's highly likely that they won't be going all that well by November).